NFL - Are You Ready For Some Football?! - Off Season

[Lord Avalon]

Boomer at least played in a Super Bowl, though. And he almost won. Let's not forget Joe Montana's 4th quarter comeback and the TD pass to John Taylor with 34 seconds to go.

Boomer came just 34 seconds and Joe Montana magic shy of a ring himself.

Boomer was also the 1988 MVP. MVP's count for something, right?

Yeah, well Montana did win that and others. When Boomer played most of the games, he only had two winning seasons.

[Al B. Sure!]

Yeah, well Montana did win that and others. When Boomer played most of the games, he only had two winning seasons.

3 winning seasons... 86, 88, 90... 9-7 is a winning season.

And regardless, in a comparison between Testaverde and Boomer, it's obvious who's better... the 4x Pro Bowler, 1x All Pro, and 1988 MVP who won an AFC Championship.

[Lord Avalon]

Oops, missed that one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why do you people respond to Ben? You know he's a loony.

[Al B. Sure!]

Why do you people respond to Ben? You know he's a loony.

I actually did laugh out loud when he said he thought Testaverde should be in the Hall of Fame.


Ben's selective use of meaningless stats (and liberal use of 'projections' combined with dyslexic reading of statistics) is irritating though. I'm waiting for him to opine about how great Flutie is because he was 2nd among retired players at interception % off play-action in the fourth quarter when losing by more than 7 in a dome or some other crazy mess. And no, Ben that isn't true. I just made it up. Don't get all excited and pass that on to your Flutie Flakes-eating, Vinny Testaverde-loving buddies.

I am noticing a pattern, though. Ben seems to love mediocre players who played into their 40's.

I wonder if this game:

In a December 26, 2005 game against the New York Jets, Flutie was sent in late in the game. The Jets also sent in their back-up quarterback, Vinny Testaverde. This was the first time in NFL history that two quarterbacks over the age of 40 competed against each other (Testaverde was 42, Flutie was 43).

Made Ben orgasm or something.

[Al B. Sure!]

Ben, was Darren Flutie better than Jerry Rice?

For people like me who don't give a rat's ass what happens in Canada, Darren Flutie was Doug's brother and was 3rd all-time at receiving yards in the CFL. Darren also played one season for the Chargers in 1988 in which he had 18 catches 208 yards and 2 scores.

A Flutie + played for the Chargers + one of the CFL's best = GREATEST RECEIVER OF ALL TIME TO BEN!

[Lord Avalon]

Why do you people respond to Ben? You know he's a loony.

Most of the time I don't. So I'm going to blame Al B.

[Al B. Sure!]

I'm sorry but I can't let crazy mess go like that. This all started innocently enough where I was explaining my idea of who is represented by the idea of a 'franchise quarterback' to Jrabbit and Ben felt the need to say that Randall Cunningham wasn't at that level and that Testaverde was. I'm sorry but I couldn't let that one go.

All in all, we did get a great quote out of this mess:

The more I look at Testaverde, the more I think he should be in the hall.

Holy ****. That still makes me chuckle.

[Al B. Sure!]

Okay here's my loony position... I want some input on this. Which QB and which one is better?

Quarterback #1
Started 165 games, 94-71-0 as a starter (.569)
32942 yards, 165 TDs 141 INTs 7.0 Y/A 81.6 QB rating

Quarterback #2
Started 159 games, 95-64-0 as a starter (.597)
33462 yards, 199 TDs 157 INTs 7.2 Y/A 78.5 QB rating

Pretty close, right? QB #2 played a few less games but had a better winning %, threw for more yards, quite a few more TDs, fewer INTs per game, and stretched the field more.

You'd probably rank them about the same with maybe QB #2 just a little higher, right?

Now what if I told you that QB #1 was on a team that featured one of the best offensive lines to ever play the game, the all-time rushing leader, and the #8 all-time receiving yards per game receiver?

Meanwhile QB #2 had an RB who had 5585 career rushing yards in 7 seasons and his best receiver was his decidedly average tight end?

Yes, QB #1 used his stellar cast to win 3 Super Bowls while QB #2 won only one although he led his team to an 11-3 record and a playoff berth before going down and his backup led the team to a second SB victory.

My question is why was QB #1 a first-ballot Hall of Famer and QB #2 is never in the conversation?

It's evident to me who the better QB was; who did more with a lot less. It didn't translate into as many Super Bowl victories but his team was a lot less special at all other positions.

[Lord Avalon]

Because it's more than just about stats. A QB that wins in the playoffs and especially the Super Bowl has the intangibles (or is assumed to) that set him apart from the QB that loses those important games.

Yes, having a really good team around you helps. That's just the way it is.

[-Jrabbit]

1. Three rings. The Holy Grail of the NFL. And the QB, for good or ill, gets the lion's share of the credit (see Bob Griese).
2. Played for Dallas or Pittsburgh in the modern era. It's the equivalent of being a beloved Yankee in baseball -- gives you bigtime benefit of the doubt with the voters.

No two ways about it, players on bad teams don't get a fair shake in NFL HOF voting. Surely you're used to that by now.

[SlowwHand]

Al is like, I don't know, Saint Jude.

[Al B. Sure!]

It's not like Phil Simms didn't have success though. He had a better winning % than Aikman. He won a Super Bowl and really deserves credit for putting Hostetler in a position where he could win a Super Bowl, as well.

Aikman took his team to the playoffs 7 seasons.
Simms took his team to the playoffs 5 seasons (really 6 because he took the Giants to 11-3 and a playoff berth before he went down in 1990). Aikman has one more playoff season.

Simms has 6 playoff victories which pales compared to Aikman's 11 but look at Aikman's team. And it's not like a QB with 6 playoff victories (who would have had 9 because surely Simms would have done everything that Hostetler did but better) is bad.

For comparison, Warren Moon had 3.

And those playoff appearances are all the more notable because of the era he was playing in.

Look at Simm's playoff losses...

He lost in 1984 in the divisional round to the 49ers who would go on to win the Super Bowl. The next season, the Giants beat the 49ers in the wildcard round but lost to the 85 Bears in the divisional round. The next year, he threw 4 TD passes in a 49-3 blowout of Montana's 49ers and would go on to win a Super Bowl (and have possibly the greatest Super Bowl performance by a QB ever). Lost to the Rams in 89 then to the Steve Young 49ers in 1993 in the divisional round.

I'm sorry but losing to the 84 49ers and the 85 Bears! Let Phil Simms play against anybody else but two 18-1 teams that were probably the second and third/fourth best teams to ever play the game!

Considering his team (Joe Morris/Ottis Anderson and a rag-tag group of receivers led by TE Mark Bavaro and consisting of the likes of Mark Ingram and Lionel Manuel) and the teams Simms had to face off against, I say Simms excelled.

[Al B. Sure!]

The facts as I see them...

Simms was better statistically than Aikman
Simms won more games/had a better winning % than Aikman
Simms has a ring and deserves some credit for his second (hell, they're both on his hand, anyway!)
Simms had a team that was nothing compared to the Cowboys

In my mind, maybe the extra SB win gives Aikman an edge, but Aikman was a first-ballot HoFer whereas Simms isn't in the conversation. That makes no sense to me. At the very least, even if you don't give Simms credit for leading a much worse team, you would say they're about the same with Aikman's 3 rings giving him an advantage...

Yet how was Aikman a first-ballot HoFer and Simms isn't in the convo? If it was a case of Simms getting in after 5 years, I could see that. If it were a case of Simms not getting in at all and Aikman getting in after a few years, I could see that.

The disparity in Hall of Fame perception doesn't correspond to statistics nor wins nor anything else that happened on the field.


What is it? Were the "America's Team" Dallas Cowboys just too sexy or something? The ho-hum Bill Parcells' Giants just weren't flashy enough? That's looking like the difference and if that's what matters for the Hall of Fame, there's a definite problem.

[Al B. Sure!]

Give Phil Simms Emmitt Smith. Give Troy Aikman Joe Morris or the old, in his 30's, Ottis Anderson.
Give Phil Simms Michael Irvin. Give Troy Aikman Mark Ingram.

Let's see which QB wins 3+ Super Bowls and which one wins probably zero.

Does anyone doubt that Phil Simms would have won at least 3 Super Bowls with those guys?